Arhag Housing Association Limited (202524775)

Decision
Case ID	202524775
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Arhag Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	6 March 2026

Background

The resident lives with her daughter, who provides care. The resident’s daughter raised the complaint on her behalf. For the purpose of this report, we will refer to them both as the ‘resident.’ She first reported a leak from the flat above, which later caused the ceiling to collapse. The resident shared her health conditions and vulnerabilities with the landlord. She said that the living conditions further affected her health conditions.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlords:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. No maladministration in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We found that:
1. The landlord did not monitor or manage the leak repairs effectively. It did not take proactive steps to gain access to the property that was causing the leak.
2. The landlord did not complete risk assessments that would have helped it respond appropriately as the situation worsened. It did not consider the household’s vulnerabilities when deciding how to proceed, and it did not explain its decisions or involve the resident in its planning.
3. The landlord did not assess whether the property remained habitable after the leak or as the repairs progressed.
4. The landlord did not follow up on the commitments it made during its internal complaints process. Its offer of redress was not in line with its compensation policy or with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure that: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 03 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £784.54. This is made up of: £334.54 for the partial loss of 2 rooms. This is based on 40% of the average Westminster weekly rent of £167.27 for 5 weeks. £400 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair, and household vulnerabilities. £50 offered during the landlord’s complaint response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made.	No later than 03 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to complete the inspection by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects all areas of the property to identify what repairs remain outstanding. The survey report must set out: A list of the works needed to resolve the issue within each of the rooms. It must provide a schedule including likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Provide the resident and us with a copy of the report by the due date.	No later than 13 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 2 to 11 July 2025	The resident reported a leak through her ceiling from a flat directly above. The landlord’s contractor attended and reported leaks in 2 separate areas of the ceiling, one of which was affecting the electrics. It could not gain access to the flat above. The contractor made a further attempt to access the property above the resident on 7 July 2025 but was not able to gain entry. The contractor gained access to flat above on 10 July 2025 and repaired the leak. The resident reported her ceiling collapsed on 11 July 2025. The contractor attended and confirmed debris on the furniture and floor. It confirmed it required a clean-up to also remove pieces of hanging plaster from the ceiling. It identified work required to the living room, bedroom, kitchen, and hallway.
21 July 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had not yet completed any substantial repairs. She also said several personal items were damaged during the incident, including the sofa, television, flooring, dining table, and curtains. She said the damp and dusty environment was hazardous to her health because she had a reduced immune system following medical treatment. She asked the landlord to complete the repairs immediately and compensate her for the damaged items.
11 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and partially upheld the complaint. It said that: its contractor received the first report of a leak on 2 July 2025 and repaired it on 10 July 2025 after the ceiling collapsed, its contractor attended the same night and made the area safe its surveyor and engineer attended the next day to clear the debris and planned the repairs its contractor requested an asbestos survey on 16 July 2025 and it completed this on 21 July 2025 the main repairs took place on 4 and 5 August 2025 with further works planned for 13 August 2025 and redecorations to follow it could have completed repairs sooner and apologised it would visit to record all damaged items and prepare a proposal to repair or replace them it would arrange a final clean following the completion of the repairs it offered £50 compensation for the repair delay
11 August 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said that: repairs remained outstanding, the ceiling remained unsafe, and the property was still damp the damp had spread to other rooms, including the bedroom and kitchen the landlord had not offered temporary accommodation while she waited for the repairs, even though parts of the property were unsafe and she had a reduced immune system the £50 goodwill gesture did not reflect the distress, disruption, or effect on her health it had still not resolved the damaged personal possessions To resolve this, she asked the landlord to: reassess the compensation replace or reimburse the damaged possessions confirm a firm completion date for the repairs
4 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It said: damp in the ceiling did not make the property uninhabitable it would complete another assessment to check if it needed to complete more repairs it had considered her vulnerabilities and decided a temporary move would have been more detrimental it would complete the outstanding repairs to the living room ceiling on 3 September 2025 and bedroom ceiling on 5 September 2025 it would consider repairing or replacing affected items and asked her to provide a list with approximate values and purchase dates it said it only became aware of the vulnerabilities at escalation and asked her for details to update its records the compensation it offered at stage 1 was in line with its policy for a service failure of a short period
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us. She said the landlord had ignored early warning signs that the ceiling would collapse. The resident also said the landlord did not consider her vulnerabilities and left her in unsafe and uninhabitable conditions. Nor had it communicated a repair plan or the timescale in which it would complete the required work. She wanted it to apologise, complete the work, and increase its offer of compensation due to the distress and inconvenience caused.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. It lists the renewal of plasterboard ceilings as an example of a routine repair. Its compensation policy advises it will consider a partial rent refund of 20% for loss of use relating to a room if repairs fall outside of this timescale.
Landlords must keep homes safe and free from hazards. When a leak affects electrics or creates damp, the landlord should inspect the property, assess risks, and confirm whether the home remains safe to occupy. While the landlord attended the property, it is unclear from the evidence how it communicated it repair plans or its decision about temporary accommodation to the resident.
The resident first reported a leak on 2 July 2025. Although the landlord attended, it did not contain the leak or assess the risks when its contractor could not access the flat above. There is no evidence it considered the effect on the household at this stage. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The leak continued for 6 working days until 10 July 2025. Given the active leak and the reports that water had reached the electrics, the landlord should have demonstrated how it reassessed the risks. It should also have considered further action, including forced entry if necessary. There is no evidence it considered these options or the resident’s vulnerabilities. This failure caused avoidable distress to the resident as she remained affected by the leak.
On 11 July 2025 the ceiling collapsed. The landlord attended and made the area safe, but it again failed to complete a risk assessment. The resident reported damage caused to her possessions and health concerns. This was a missed opportunity to identify hazards in the home and to understand the effect of the damage on the resident’s daily living.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the property the following day and identified repairs. While this was appropriate, there is no evidence that the landlord assessed the risks of the resident remaining in the property while the works were planned. It also did not show how it considered the damp reported in several rooms or the resident’s concerns for her health.
The resident and her daughter told the landlord that the conditions were affecting her health and that personal items were damaged. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays, but it did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or communicate a repair plan with the resident. It also did not show what steps it would take to minimise the effects of damp reported by the resident. This demonstrates gaps in the landlord’s communication and monitoring of the resident’s concerns.
In her complaint escalation the resident reported damp throughout the home, particularly affecting her living room and a bedroom. The landlord said the property was still habitable but did not evidence how it reached this view. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its staff and contractors. However, the landlord did not show the findings of its own assessment of the property conditions despite its contractor’s view that multiple rooms were affected.
The resident also asked about temporary accommodation. The landlord said it had considered this a “more detrimental” option for the resident. However, there is no evidence of an assessment of the resident’s circumstances or her home’s condition. This blanket approach without evidencing an assessment of the household circumstances was not appropriate.
The resident provided a list of damaged items. The landlord did not follow through on its commitment to catalogue them and did not signpost her to its insurer. This caused the resident further avoidable time and trouble.
The landlord’s communication throughout was inconsistent. It did not provide clear updates, explain its decisions, or follow through on agreed actions. Its offer of £50 was not proportionate to the level of distress, inconvenience, and loss of room use, and did not reflect its own compensation policy or our remedies guidance.
When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress put things right. We also recognise that the distress caused by maladministration is unique to each resident. Not all residents will experience the same impact, which may be due to their circumstances or vulnerabilities (aggravating factors). Where such factors exist, we may consider these to justify an increased compensation award.
The landlord had 28 calendar days from the resident’s first report on 2 July 2025 to complete the repairs. It did not meet this timescale and it completed the repairs on 5 September 2025. This meant the resident experienced a further 37 days without full use of her home. The landlord was aware of the damp conditions, the partial loss of both the living room and the bedroom, and the resident’s health vulnerabilities. However, its offer of redress did not show consideration for this.
Therefore, we find maladministration. To put things right, we have considered the impact of the landlord’s delay beyond its 28‑day repair window. This includes the partial loss of 2 rooms, the household’s vulnerabilities (‘aggravating factors’), and the distress and inconvenience caused.
We order the landlord to pay £784.54 compensation. This is made up of:
1. £334.54 for the partial loss of 2 rooms. This is based on 40% of the average Westminster weekly rent of £167.27 for 5 weeks.
2. £400 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair and household vulnerabilities.
3. £50 offered during the landlord’s complaint response.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint met the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 21 July 2025. The landlord acknowledged this within 5 working days. It provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later on 11 August 2025. These were within the timescales stated in its policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 18 working days later on 4 September 2025. This response was within the timescale stated in its policy.
We find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. All of its responses were issued within the appropriate timescales.

Learning

This case highlights learning for the landlord about how it assesses and manages risks when leaks create hazards in a home. The landlord should decide when a risk assessment is needed and when it should review this, particularly when conditions worsen. It also needs to keep clear records showing how it reached decisions about a property’s condition and how it assessed the need for alternative accommodation in those circumstances.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord needs to strengthen its record keeping so it can show how it assessed risks, made decisions, and monitored the situation. Throughout the timeline there are gaps in its understanding of the situation, unclear records of access attempts, and no record of how it decided the property was safe to occupy. It also did not record how it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or the impact of damp and the ceiling collapse. Clear, accurate, and timely records would help the landlord demonstrate it took reasonable steps, maintain oversight of its contractors, and provide residents with consistent information. Stronger record keeping would support better decision-making and reduce avoidable distress and inconvenience for residents.

Communication

There is learning for the landlord about the importance of clear and timely communication when managing repairs. Regular updates would help reduce the need for residents to chase for information. Confirming the scope of work with contractors before booking appointments would help prevent avoidable confusion and delay. Clear information about the work required, appointment dates, and responsibilities would help ensure all parties understand what is needed.